Passport visa, entry & transit requirements for any country pair, with official government sources.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: check_visa answers visa requirements, while country_code resolves country names to codes. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
check_visa follows a verb_noun pattern, but country_code uses noun-only. However, both names are clear and intuitive, and the minor inconsistency is negligible given the small tool count.
Two tools is on the low end, but the server has a narrowly defined purpose: visa checking with a supporting code resolver. This scope justifies the small count without feeling incomplete.
The core workflow (resolve country code, then check visa) is fully covered. No obvious missing operations for the stated domain, though additional features like multi-passport comparison could exist but are not essential.
check_visaCheck visa & entry requirementsAInspectCheck whether a traveler holding a given passport needs a visa, and what entry & transit requirements apply, for a destination country — with official government sources. Accepts ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes (e.g. "US", "KE") or common country names (e.g. "United States", "Kenya"). Returns a plain-language verdict, the specific requirements by severity, deduped official source links, and a deep link to the full EasyOnward analysis. Read-only and PII-free; the analysis is generic for any citizen of the passport country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| passport_country | Yes | The traveler's passport-issuing country. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (e.g. "US") or country name (e.g. "United States"). | |
| destination_country | Yes | The destination country. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (e.g. "KE") or country name (e.g. "Kenya"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and PII-free behavior, generic analysis, and the exact return components (verdict, requirements by severity, source links, deep link). This is rich behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-load the purpose, then input format, then outputs and safety. No fluff; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description covers return values in detail, input formats, and safety traits. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, with no obvious gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reiterating accepted formats. The examples in the description duplicate schema examples. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks visa needs and entry/transit requirements for a passport-destination pair, with official sources. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the sibling country_code tool, which handles code conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: whenever a traveler needs visa/entry requirements. It explicitly accepts both ISO codes and country names, signaling no need for prior code conversion via the sibling tool, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
country_codeResolve a country name to its ISO-2 codeAInspectResolve a country name (or an existing ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code) to its uppercase ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code — e.g. "Kenya" → "KE". Useful before calling check_visa. Returns an error if the name can't be resolved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A country name or ISO-2 code, e.g. "Kenya" or "KE". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation normalizes to uppercase, accepts both names and codes, and returns an error on unresolvable input, which covers the key behaviors of this simple lookup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and efficiently includes an example, usage context, and error behavior without any redundant or fluff content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the function, including return behavior (uppercase code) and error conditions. It could have explicitly stated the return type, but it is clearly implied from the phrasing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the sole parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited meaning. The example 'Kenya' → 'KE' reinforces the schema but does not fundamentally alter parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Resolve') and resource (country name to ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 code), includes a concrete example ('Kenya' → 'KE'), and explicitly ties to the sibling tool check_visa, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by stating 'Useful before calling check_visa' and mentions it accepts existing ISO-2 codes, implying it can also validate codes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.